In the Supreme Court of the United States

Transcription

1 No In the Supreme Court of the United States ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Petitioner v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT COUNSEL OF RECORD TIMOTHY J. SIMEONE DANIELLE J. PIÑERES WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP th St., N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C (202) cwright@wiltshiregrannis.com

2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. This Court Should Determine Whether the Treaty of Amity Provides a Cause of Action to Sue a Sovereign in a Company s Home Courts... 3 II.. This Court Should Determine the Appropriate Degree of Deference Due a Foreign Sovereign s Interpretation of its Domestic Law... 8 CONCLUSION... 13

3 Cases ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 197 F.3d 694 (5th Cir. 1999)... 9 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)... 8 Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981)... 7 Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002)... 9 Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)... 8 In re Oil Spill, 954 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1992)... 9 Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982)... 3 United States v. McNab, 331 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942)... 8 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P , 10 Sup. Ct. R

4 In the Supreme Court of the United States No ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Petitioner v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER The first question presented is whether the Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran, construed as Iranian law, authorizes suit against Iran in U.S. courts or only in Iranian courts. McKesson principally argues that this question does not warrant review because it is too narrow a question. That is not so. The relevant treaty language is found in at least 30 other treaties. And the court of appeals acknowledged that its decision not only opens the doors of U.S. courts to suits by U.S. companies doing business in all of those countries, but also exposes the United States to suit in all of those countries. Pet. App. 25a. Whether the

5 2 decision below correctly opens the doors of courts around the world to suits against foreign sovereigns is an important issue that warrants review by this Court. McKesson s argument, Opp. 9-11, that the United States agrees with its position is just wrong. Below, the United States opposed McKesson s argument that McKesson had a cause of action under U.S. law, U.S. C.A. Br. 7, and took no position on questions involving the interpretation of Iranian law, id. at 2 n.1. It is far from clear that the United States would endorse the decision of the court below, which by allowing McKesson to pursue a cause of action under the Treaty construed as Iranian law in the courts of the United States exposes the United States to suit around the world. The second question presented asks the Court to resolve the conflict in the circuits on the extent to which a foreign sovereign s interpretation of its law is entitled to deference. McKesson incorrectly states that the courts of appeals have a consistent practice regarding the consideration of [a] foreign sovereign s views and further argues that there is no need for a uniform federal standard, Opp a direct challenge to this Court s long-standing practice of resolving conflicts in the circuits on important issues of federal law. McKesson also advances the curious claim that conflicting standards of review do not matter. Id. at But standards of review matter greatly, the courts of appeals have adopted a range of different standards, and the court below would have reached a different result if it had applied the correct standard and given deference to Iran s interpretation of Iranian law.

6 3 I. This Court Should Determine Whether the Treaty of Amity Provides a Cause of Action to Sue a Sovereign in a Company s Home Courts. 1. While McKesson argues that the question whether the Treaty of Amity provides a cause of action that may be brought in U.S. courts is too narrow to warrant review, McKesson does not dispute that the relevant treaty language appears in more than 30 other treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation ( FCN treaties ). Pet Moreover, this Court has previously explained that issues involving the interpretation of FCN treaties are clearly of widespread importance because similar treaty provisions are in effect with many other countries. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 182 n.7 (1982). A standard provision in FCN treaties calls for the host country to open its courts to suits against the sovereign, as Article III, clause 2, of the Treaty at issue provides. Accordingly, signatories to many FCN treaties have promised to provide a cause of action to a company doing business in the foreign country that wants to sue the sovereign. But as explained in the Petition at 22-24, the sovereigns signing FCN treaties almost certainly did not believe they were consenting to suit in the United States when they did so, since such suits were virtually unknown at the time. McKesson points out that litigants could not sue foreign sovereigns in U.S. courts until 1976, when Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ( FSIA ), so it is not surprising that countries did not contemplate such suits when they negotiated

7 4 FCN treaties such as the Treaty of Amity in the 1950s and 1960s. Opp. 5. But that argument supports Iran s view. Now that the court of appeals has decided that the commercial activities exception to the FSIA does not provide McKesson with a cause of action, but an FCN treaty construed as foreign law does, it is highly relevant that Iran did not intend to waive its immunity to suit outside its own courts when it signed the Treaty. The issue is no longer what FSIA means but what the Treaty means. And the fact that sovereigns were not subject to suit in this country when the United States and Iran signed the Treaty at issue (like many FCN treaties) supports the conclusion that the signatories did not intend to waive sovereign immunity except with respect to suit in their own courts. In arguing that the decision below is narrow, McKesson studiously avoids the D.C. Circuit s acknowledgement that its decision would allow Iran to sue the United States for a taking in an Iranian court or, for that matter, in the court of any country with personal jurisdiction over the United States. Pet. App. 25a. Thus, in addition to opening U.S. courts to American companies seeking to sue foreign sovereigns, the decision below broadly opens the doors of courts around the world to suits by foreign companies against the United States. Indeed, the court of appeals even acknowledged that its decision would permit suit against the United States in the courts of a third country, if the plaintiff chose to sue there, id. so that, for example, an Iranian company might sue the United States in any country that is a signatory to an FCN treaty if the courts of one of those countries appeared to provide a particularly favorable forum.

8 5 McKesson nevertheless argues that cases similar to this one are unlikely to arise. Opp McKesson cites the 1997 district court decision holding that, under U.S. law, the Treaty provided McKesson a cause of action to sue in federal court, and states that [t]ellingly, no foreign court has invoked that ruling as a basis for enforcing a treaty right against the United States. Id. at 8. But that decision was reversed. Pet. App. 86a ( We reverse the district court s ruling that McKesson has a cause of action under the Treaty of Amity. ). It is no wonder that the 1997 district court decision was not followed by foreign courts. The decision of the court of appeals, if allowed to stand by this Court, provides a roadmap for suits in U.S. courts against FCN treaty partners. If the court of appeals interpretation of the Treaty stands, this and many other FCN treaties will be construed to provide U.S. companies the right to sue foreign sovereigns for expropriation in U.S. courts. And the courts of this country will almost always have jurisdiction under the commercial activities exception to the FSIA. That is because, as construed by the court below, jurisdiction is available in the United States if an American company merely alleges that it has been frozen out of the foreign country. Pet. App. 133a. That is not a high standard. With respect to suits against the United States in foreign courts, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that such a suit could go forward [a]ssuming that the prospective forum country had a jurisdictional statute equivalent to the FSIA. Id. at 25a. And, of course, foreign countries may choose to be even more lenient in providing jurisdiction against foreign

9 6 sovereigns, so that the United States will effectively always be subject to suit brought by a foreign company in a foreign country that is a party to an FCN treaty if the foreign country wants to permit such suits. It also bears emphasis that the effects of this case are not limited to actual expropriation cases. McKesson s allegation in this case is not that Iran actually expropriated its property, but that factors such as anti-american propaganda and takings of other American interests in Iran amounted to a sort of constructive or creeping expropriation of McKesson s 31% interest in Pak Dairy, Opp. 3 even though Iran agrees that McKesson still owns 31% of Pak Dairy. But if the courts of this country are willing to base judgments on such creative extensions of expropriation law, courts in other countries will be able to do so as well. 2. McKesson argues at length that the position advanced by the United States as amicus curiae supports the decision below. Opp McKesson misrepresents the position of the United States. Iran s position is that the Treaty, construed as Iranian law, provides McKesson with a cause of action only in Iranian courts. The United States simply did not take a position on that question in the lower court. However, the fact that the United States affirmatively opposed McKesson s argument that it had a cause of action under FSIA shows that the United States did not see some compelling reason to

10 7 conclude that McKesson ought to be permitted to bring suit against Iran in this country. 1 Moreover, McKesson ignores the exchange between the court below and counsel for the United States at oral argument on the question that ultimately became decisive. With respect to the question whether Iranian law provided McKesson with a cause of action, counsel for the United States and the court below ultimately agreed only that the question was a difficult one. Pet. App. 432a, 433a (counsel for the United States opined that a difficult choice of law issue is presented by McKesson s reliance on a cause of action created under Iranian law, and added, [o]f course, we ve taken no position on that question ); 434a (Judge Tatel agreed with counsel for the United States that it s hard, and Chief Judge Sentelle added, [t]hat much we might agree[] from the bench on ). Iran agrees that the 1 McKesson mistakenly relies, Opp. 11, on the United States discussion of Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), in its amicus brief below. The United States had argued that, if McKesson possessed a cause of action under U.S. law, it should not be barred from bringing that action in a U.S. court on account of a negative implication of the Treaty. But that argument is now irrelevant because it is settled that McKesson lacks a cause of action under U.S. law. Acceptance of Iran s interpretation of the Treaty as not providing a cause of action to bring suit under Iranian law in the United States would not mean the plaintiffs in Dames & Moore should not have been allowed to bring their contract actions under U.S. law.

11 8 question is sufficiently difficult and important to warrant this Court s review. 2 II. This Court Should Determine the Appropriate Degree of Deference Due a Foreign Sovereign s Interpretation of its Domestic Law. 1. The courts of appeals have enunciated at least three standards of review to govern the appropriate degree of deference accorded to a sovereign s interpretation of its own law. The standard enunciated by this Court in United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 220 (1942), grants the most deference, holding that Russia s interpretation of Russian law was conclusive. This standard is very similar to the standard applied to state court determinations of state law, which this Court accepts without asking whether it would construe state law differently. See, e.g., Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 (1975). The second and somewhat less deferential standard is analogous to the familiar standard from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), under which courts accept permissible interpretations of federal statutes advanced by federal agencies charged with interpreting them, even if the agency s interpretation is not the only 2 McKesson suggests that review by this Court is not warranted because, in addition to its claim that the Treaty construed as Iranian law provides a cause of action, three Iranian statutes allegedly provide a cause of action. Opp But Iran construes the Treaty as a special law which supersedes the general Iranian laws. C.A. JA 814 (Declaration of Dr. M.E. Sanaei providing Iran s interpretation of Iranian law).

12 9 plausible interpretation or even the best interpretation. The Seventh Circuit employed this standard, holding that substantial deference is due a foreign sovereign s interpretation of its law and analogizing its standard to Chevron deference. In re Oil Spill, 954 F.2d 1279, 1312 (7th Cir. 1992). The third approach is the least deferential. The Second Circuit said that courts should afford some degree of deference to a foreign sovereign s interpretation of its domestic law, elaborating that deference is warranted where the choice between two interpretations rests finely balanced. Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir. 2002). Similarly, the Fifth Circuit has adopted a lesser degree of deference, stating that courts may defer to foreign government interpretations of their law. Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 714 (5th Cir. 1999). McKesson does not address these different standards, but astonishingly asserts that [o]ur courts are not bound by a general rule or guidance from this Court prescribing a specific degree of deference, nor should they be. Opp. 14. This is nonsense. Federal law is supposed to be uniform, and this Court s fundamental standard for deciding which cases warrant review gives primacy to cases where the decision of one federal court of appeals conflicts with the decision of another. Sup. Ct. R. 10. McKesson relegates its discussion of this Court s decision in Pink primarily to a footnote. Opp n.1. McKesson appears to argue that the adoption of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which authorizes courts to consider any relevant material

13 10 or source, including testimony, when determining the meaning of foreign law, somehow overruled this Court s decision. But leaving aside the fact that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not trump this Court s decisions, a Rule authorizing consideration of relevant materials does not in any way conflict with a rule that a foreign sovereign s interpretation of its law, when available, is conclusive. Moreover, considerations of comity strongly support the conclusion that federal courts should accept interpretations of foreign law from foreign sovereigns just as they accept state court interpretations of state law. When an interpretation of foreign law is available from the sovereign, it would be unseemly for a court to decide that it knows the law of a foreign country better than the foreign sovereign itself. The United States presumably believes that foreign courts should accept its views regarding the meaning of U.S. law; it is difficult to see how it simultaneously could argue that U.S. courts should give lesser weight to the views of foreign sovereigns. With respect to the decisions of the Seventh and Second Circuits giving varying degrees of deference to foreign government determinations, McKesson advances the curious argument that those different deference standards do not matter because the courts always conduct some further analysis and do not necessarily ultimately accept the foreign sovereign s interpretation. But the degree of deference does matter a court applying a substantial deference standard will accept a foreign sovereign s interpretation more often than a court that only gives deference when the arguments for different

14 11 interpretations are finely balanced. And both courts will accept a foreign sovereign s interpretations more often than a court that determines foreign law de novo which appears to be the standard favored by McKesson. 3 This Court should adopt a uniform standard. 2. Application of any standard providing deference to a foreign sovereign s interpretation of its law leads to reversal in this case. Iran provided its construction of Iranian law below by means of an expert declaration. Dr. M.E. Sanaei explained on behalf of Iran that McKesson s only cause of action for expropriation against Iran as a matter o[f] Iranian law is pursuant to the Treaty of Amity and must first be brought in an Iranian court. C.A. JA 813. His clear and thorough explanation of that conclusion boils down to the points that the Treaty is a special law that supersedes the general Iranian laws and both waives sovereign immunity and provides a cause of action to American nationals; but in view of the principle of immunity of the States before the foreign courts under international law, the Treaty s cause of action against the Government of 3 McKesson emphasizes the Eleventh Circuit s decision in United States v. McNab, 331 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003), where the court of appeals declined to accept Honduras s interpretation of its laws governing the harvesting of lobsters. But McNab involved an unusual situation in which Honduras provided one interpretation of its law prior to a criminal trial and then a contradictory interpretation after conviction. The court accepted the first interpretation but not the second, saying, There must be some finality with representations of foreign law by foreign governments. Id. at 1241.

15 12 Iran is only enforceable by the Iranian competent courts. Id. at 814, 815. In our view, that interpretation of Iranian law should be accepted even if this Court were to interpret the Treaty, construed as Iranian law, de novo. But a determination that courts should defer to the interpretation provided by a foreign sovereign of its laws would mandate acceptance of Iran s interpretation and reversal of the court of appeals contrary interpretation. It is beyond dispute that reversal would be warranted if this Court reviewed the D.C. Circuit s decision under the conclusive standard employed in Pink. Similarly, in our view, Iran s interpretation should also prevail if the Court applies the substantial deference standard employed by the Seventh Circuit or the some degree of deference standard employed by the Second Circuit because there is no reason to think Iran intended to waive sovereign immunity outside Iran by signing the Treaty. This Court should review the decision below and determine what standard of review applies to interpretations of foreign sovereigns concerning the meaning of their laws.

16 13 CONCLUSION The Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT COUNSEL OF RECORD TIMOTHY J. SIMEONE DANIELLE J. PIÑERES WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP th St., N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C (202) cwright@wiltshiregrannis.com